Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Is C’s Omni CG4 the same mount as SW’s NEQ5?

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 therealdmt

therealdmt

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2015

Posted 01 October 2020 - 04:08 AM

Hello, all. 
 

Examples of the two mounts in question are linked to below.

Celestron Omni CG4https://www.highpoin...ial-mount-91509

 

Sky-Watcher NEQ5https://www.raig.co....cher-neq5-b18f/

Are they the same mounts, just with different branding and trim details?

 

Also, can either and/or both of these two manual EQ mounts be relatively easily converted to motor-driven later if that became a desire? I actually don’t want a motor, but I could imagine the desire arising at some point, so it would be cool if there were an established upgrade path without getting an entirely different mount.

 

As background, I haven’t used an EQ mount since I was a kid (and have only used an Alt-Az astronomy mount/tripod 3 times, lol, just this past weekend), but I was considering getting a manual EQ mount just to see how I’d do with it. Play around, explore, see what I like, that kind of thing. But, and I’m just asking, it also occurred to me that at some point I might become interested in having such a mount driven so as to have an object stay in my eyepiece indefinitely and possibly also so as to be able to take some amateurish snapshots without star trails. Please understand, I’m not talking about serious astrophotography here. I hate Photoshop, for example, and have absolutely no interest, zero, in stacking photos in specialized software and spending thousands on astrophotography gear, etc. I’m talking like the camera might just be my iPhone. And, I’m just asking. I’m actually a beginner, but this question about two specific models seemed a bit specific for the Beginners Forum, so I thought I’d ask here.

 

So, with the above caveats in place, my final question:

If either/both of these mounts could be converted to driven, would it be worth it for even amateurish snapshot-type photographs of a few brighter targets (Pleiades, Double Cluster, maybe the Orion Nebula, planets), or would the result just be a useless blurred mess due to shaking from a cludged-together drive motor solution?

 

But my main questions are just: 1) are they the same mounts but with different branding and trim, and 2) could motor drive be added to either/both somewhere down the line if such became desired? The photo question is secondary or even tertiary (if you can’t tell, I’m a bit afraid to even mention the word "photography" around here, lol. No offense meant - I really enjoy looking at the photographs others post here, but it’s just not a rabbit hole I have any interest in going down myself. Still, I have some curiosity to the extent of what I asked above, so, pearls clutched, I asked).

 

Thanks,

-David


Edited by therealdmt, 01 October 2020 - 04:25 AM.


#2 wrvond

wrvond

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,920
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2014
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 01 October 2020 - 07:07 AM

Yes, they appear to be identical.

Yes, there are drive motors available for the CG4 for sure. The other appears to use the same motors.

Yes, you would be able to take iPhone type photos but, to my knowledge there is no “bulb” or long exposure setting for the phone’s camera so you are limited to very bright objects. Trails wouldn’t be a problem until you mount an SLR.



#3 therealdmt

therealdmt

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2015

Posted 01 October 2020 - 08:35 AM

Yes, they appear to be identical.

Yes, there are drive motors available for the CG4 for sure. The other appears to use the same motors.

Yes, you would be able to take iPhone type photos but, to my knowledge there is no “bulb” or long exposure setting for the phone’s camera so you are limited to very bright objects. Trails wouldn’t be a problem until you mount an SLR.

Great, thanks!

 

This hobby is confusing with all the equipment sold by different brands, sometimes with significantly different looking exteriors, that are really the same exact thing inside. I started seeing that with eyepieces, but also OTAs, and that led to my suspicion regarding this mount. I could get the Sky-Watcher one locally, but there seems to be more info and probably more accessories available in relation the the CG-4, so thought I’d check if the Sky-Watcher would indeed be the same thing.

 

Thanks again

- David


Edited by therealdmt, 01 October 2020 - 09:41 AM.


#4 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,759
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 01 October 2020 - 10:11 AM

I would say No.

 

The CG-4 is comparable to a Vixen Polaris.

 

The NEQ-5 (EQ-5) is equivalent to a Celestron CG-5 (predecessor of the AVX) and has materially more capacity than the CG-4.  The EQ-5/CG-5 are clones of the Vixen Great Polaris.

 

It's fairly clear from the OP's links that these are different mounts.


  • PXR-5 and therealdmt like this

#5 therealdmt

therealdmt

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2015

Posted 01 October 2020 - 11:44 PM

I would say No.

 

The CG-4 is comparable to a Vixen Polaris.

 

The NEQ-5 (EQ-5) is equivalent to a Celestron CG-5 (predecessor of the AVX) and has materially more capacity than the CG-4.  The EQ-5/CG-5 are clones of the Vixen Great Polaris.

 

It's fairly clear from the OP's links that these are different mounts.

Ah, that would make sense, thanks.

 

From browsing around looking at mounts, it has been seeming to me that often, at least with the Sky-Watcher and Celestron-type (Synta?) mounts I’m typically looking at, a ‘4’ in the model designation essentially means "lightweight", while ‘3’ means "ultralight/travel weight" and a ‘5’ means something like "medium light weight", etc. Your post is kind of confirming that for me.

 

Do you happen to have any idea if the EQ5 (not sure what the ‘N’ in NEQ5 means) can be readily converted to driven? Of course I could just buy a driven mount, but I’d actually prefer a manual one right now, but it would be cool if it had an easy upgrade path to driven if I end up wanting that later


Edited by therealdmt, 02 October 2020 - 09:13 AM.


#6 therealdmt

therealdmt

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2015

Posted 02 October 2020 - 12:38 AM

And, I just confirmed from the seller (not that he’s immune to mistakes, but it’s all starting to make sense) that the NEQ5 is the same mount as the Celestron CG5. He also wrote, "Double shaft motor can be installed (optional)"


Edited by therealdmt, 02 October 2020 - 12:47 AM.


#7 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,759
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 02 October 2020 - 02:32 AM

The EQ-5/CG-5/Orion Sky View Pro are all clones of the Vixen GP and can accept the Vixen MT-1 motors. But the motors and drive are pricey; if you want driven just buy a Celestron AVX which gets you GoTo.

If you are very budget constrained, a used GP or Super Polaris can be had for $200 and is better quality than the China clones. You can then build a single axis drive for it using a 42mm stepper, an Arduino, and some GT2 pulleys and belt (these are commonly used for 3D printers).
  • PXR-5 and therealdmt like this

#8 therealdmt

therealdmt

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2015

Posted 02 October 2020 - 10:03 AM

The EQ-5/CG-5/Orion Sky View Pro are all clones of the Vixen GP and can accept the Vixen MT-1 motors. But the motors and drive are pricey; if you want driven just buy a Celestron AVX which gets you GoTo.

If you are very budget constrained, a used GP or Super Polaris can be had for $200 and is better quality than the China clones. You can then build a single axis drive for it using a 42mm stepper, an Arduino, and some GT2 pulleys and belt (these are commonly used for 3D printers).

Great info; thanks, orlyandico!

 

From a quick search online just now, it looks like thise MT-1 motors are a bit hard to get (discontinued?). Could be a bit of a project, so maybe a more current mount would be better. Like I said, I specifically would want manual though. I was just asking about if there would be an "upgrade" path (to driven) if my needs changed later. Beyond that, I specifically don’t want GoTo, but it seems so many EQ mounts are GoTo anymore.

 

I did read that the Vixen Great Polaris and it’s clones are more suitable for manual than some of the newer models that are really designed for drive and GoTo, so there’s still some attraction.

 

Well, I’ll keep looking into it; thanks again,

- David


Edited by therealdmt, 02 October 2020 - 10:06 AM.


#9 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,759
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 02 October 2020 - 02:43 PM

There are almost no non-GoTo mounts now.  If you want fully manual, I would look out for a Super Polaris (which is older than the Great Polaris).  The reason being that the Super Polaris has much better/larger/more usable setting circles than the GP. These come up on the classifieds with motors for $300 or less, although half the time the motors are from the Orion SVP (which work, but are much less rugged/attractive than the MT-1).


  • therealdmt likes this

#10 danielcr09

danielcr09

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2020
  • Loc: Costa Rica

Posted 02 October 2020 - 05:11 PM

No, it's actually the same model of the EQ3-2. You can for example, use the same dual-axis motors for both of them. The first versión of the EQ3, had alluminiun tripod then it was replaced in the 2nd version for the had the same steel tripod. Both Celestron, and SW's are made by SYNTA.


  • therealdmt likes this

#11 brlasy1

brlasy1

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 08 October 2020 - 06:43 PM

Hello, all. 
 

Examples of the two mounts in question are linked to below.

Celestron Omni CG4https://www.highpoin...ial-mount-91509

 

Sky-Watcher NEQ5https://www.raig.co....cher-neq5-b18f/

Are they the same mounts, just with different branding and trim details?

 

Also, can either and/or both of these two manual EQ mounts be relatively easily converted to motor-driven later if that became a desire? I actually don’t want a motor, but I could imagine the desire arising at some point, so it would be cool if there were an established upgrade path without getting an entirely different mount.

 

As background, I haven’t used an EQ mount since I was a kid (and have only used an Alt-Az astronomy mount/tripod 3 times, lol, just this past weekend), but I was considering getting a manual EQ mount just to see how I’d do with it. Play around, explore, see what I like, that kind of thing. But, and I’m just asking, it also occurred to me that at some point I might become interested in having such a mount driven so as to have an object stay in my eyepiece indefinitely and possibly also so as to be able to take some amateurish snapshots without star trails. Please understand, I’m not talking about serious astrophotography here. I hate Photoshop, for example, and have absolutely no interest, zero, in stacking photos in specialized software and spending thousands on astrophotography gear, etc. I’m talking like the camera might just be my iPhone. And, I’m just asking. I’m actually a beginner, but this question about two specific models seemed a bit specific for the Beginners Forum, so I thought I’d ask here.

 

So, with the above caveats in place, my final question:

If either/both of these mounts could be converted to driven, would it be worth it for even amateurish snapshot-type photographs of a few brighter targets (Pleiades, Double Cluster, maybe the Orion Nebula, planets), or would the result just be a useless blurred mess due to shaking from a cludged-together drive motor solution?

 

But my main questions are just: 1) are they the same mounts but with different branding and trim, and 2) could motor drive be added to either/both somewhere down the line if such became desired? The photo question is secondary or even tertiary (if you can’t tell, I’m a bit afraid to even mention the word "photography" around here, lol. No offense meant - I really enjoy looking at the photographs others post here, but it’s just not a rabbit hole I have any interest in going down myself. Still, I have some curiosity to the extent of what I asked above, so, pearls clutched, I asked).

 

Thanks,

-David

Slow Shutter is one of the many apps available for the iPhone that give you much better control of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc.  I use it for really wide photos of the Milky Way.  The camera chip in your phone will load up with noise beyond 15-20 seconds of exposure, though.  




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics